[PATCH] c-user: Add self-contained objects chapter

[Chris Johns]

On 22/12/2017 02:48, Cudmore, Alan P. (GSFC-5820) wrote:
> I like the idea of higher performance locking and the reduced need for error checking. We have had internal debates on how much error checking needs to be done when locking and unlocking a mutex for a shared data structure. 

Agreed, it is difficult so a mutex that does not return errors helps swing this
debate. :)

> 
> Are these new APIs in addition to the classic RTEMS APIs for similar objects?
> 

This is a new API. My personal view is this API will become the dominate API and
the classic API will be provided for compatibility. POSIX provides portability.

> Since there are performance benefits, is there any reason to use the classic API over the self-contained objects?

None.

> 
> Finally, the ticket referenced in some of the patches (2843) has a milestone of 6.1. Are the self-contained objects going in 5.1? 
> 

It exists now. My understanding is the only thing missing is thread support but
Sebastian can provide more detail here.

Sebastian and I have been debating the name for the API. I not thrilled about
"self-contained" as a name because it is "why it exists" not something easy and
likeable and in a few years will it mean what is does when the context it
currently resides in has changed. I however cannot think of anything better at
this point in time. I floated 'RTEMS-X' as a name and there could be 'RTEMS
Infinite', RTEMS Rapid", or something else. Also does it matter?

Any suggestions?

Chris